Jump to content

Talk:Brian Sylvestre

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RfC

[edit]

Disagreement concerning interpretation over WP:OVERLINK in regards to linking a country/nation. In this case, Haiti, which no links are applied. To all concerned parties, thanks. 22:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit]

Thanks Walter Görlitz but I'll ask here and involve a number of editors if necessary.

As per two reverts, you implied that a "nation" country is a "name of major geographic features and location..." correct?

Listed below is a check-list test in accordance with WP:OVERLINK.

  • Excessive number of links (to said article), unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article; ☒N

Why?: It was linked once, while "Florida" on the other hand was able to be linked twice. It is also relevant to the topic that being an article about himself which includes not only profession but personal life and biography as well. Both of his parents emigrated to the United States from "said country" and are relevant to linking.

  • Everyday words understood by most readers in context; ☒N

Why?: Countries are proper nouns, not common words.

  • Common units of measurement and dates; ☒N

Why?: Not a unit of measure or a date (obviously)

  • Generally, a link should appear only once in an article...; checkY

Why?: It was indeed linked "once" and not excessively.

Why?: 1 person / 7.125 billion people in the world = .00000000014035 (In other words, we are perceiving this article in the "micro-view," not in a broad sense in any way shape or form). Supply and demand is a part of everyone's lives, everywhere, in every country. Rightfully so, linking it to the United States or any other country would violate this as the definition is as broad as it gets. The country of Sylvestre's parents' birth? Not so broad; it pertains to him directly.

  • A major geographic feature or location? (as conclusively, this can be the only bullet in which you are referring); ☒N

Why?: Article Geographic feature, states "Natural geographical features consist of landforms and ecosystems. For example, terrain types, bodies of water, natural units (consisting of all plants, animals and microorganisms in an area functioning together with all of the nonliving physical factors of the environment) are natural geographical features. Nowhere in this definition talks about "sovereign" nations, which constitutes a micro-view (governed, populated etc.) Classics from IJGIS: Twenty years of the International Journal of Information Science and Systems pg. 498 Fisher, Peter A Research Agenda for Geographic Information Science at the United States Geological Survey pg. 84

A location is the place where a particular point or object exists. Location is an important term in geography, and is usually considered more precise than "place." A locality is a human settlement: city, town, village, or even archaeological site." Locations within a "country;" not the country (or "nation") itself. National Geographic

Artificial geographical features refer to towns and cities. (also, buildings and objects according to Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Buildings and objects [1] Features, Objects, and other Things: Ontological Distinctions in the Geographic Domain pg. 1

Please, explain to me how this link would contribute to being a major geographic feature or location? If you cannot, it will be reverted. If you should revert, I will be sure to make this a hot topic. There are many good article biographies that have links to countries via parentage etc.

See "good articles":

The list goes on and on, so hence my comment to your talk page (now erased)..."Are you serious?" Now you've been an editor for 11 years (should you know better? False positive?). Please start acting as such, and refrain from such senseless reversals and wasting my time explaining what a geographic feature is like you are a 10-year old. No pun intended. Thank you for all your contributions. Savvyjack23 (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking in the wrong place. I fixed those articles based on the discussions at the guideline. Feel free to point out other problem articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Görlitz, not sure what that means. This relates to this article, as I saw a minor detail that warranted attention on the fly. If I run into another, I will adjust accordingly. You can either explain or not. Currently seeking a Third opinion. Savvyjack23 (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What it means is that the correct place to discuss how WP:OVERLINK is applied is on the talk page where the guidelines is stated. I made a comment there and requested that editors come here to discuss the issue of how it's applied to linking nations.
Further, while other stuff exists applies to deletion discussions, the idea also applies to this discussion. Just because there are bad articles that don't correctly follow the guidelines does not mean that we can ignore the guideline's correct application.
Finally, please stop linking my name. This article is on my watchlist and I will see all comments here. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification and commenting on Talk:WP:OVERLINK. Awaiting concerning parties. Savvyjack23 (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm lost. What is the concise question here? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mandruss: Thanks for asking. The question is: is linking of a nation against WP:OVERLINK or not? The example from this article is linking Haiti as [[Haiti]]an. Presented on the talk page are [[Ireland]], [[England]], [[Slovenia]], [[Ghana]]ian, [[South Africa]], [[Australia]]. The example of the Australian paralympian is an exception since the athlete represented the nation and so both the flag and nation are linked in the infobox.
I believe Savvyjack23 is incorrect to say that nations are not geographical features. See Human geography. The purpose of that part of the guideline is to avoid links for parts of the world that need no explanation for most readers. I think that would apply to United States, China, Russia, and many more countries. I would link only the least-known countries, such as maybe Bangladesh. To me, the only question is how well-known is Haiti, and I would probably link it. That said, it's not that important in the greater scheme of things, and I would probably agree not to link it if a different editor felt really strongly about it. A little give and take is a good thing, especially on the less important things. Let's keep things in perspective; if Haiti isn't linked here, a reader who wants to know more about Haiti can type five characters in the Search box and press Enter. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback Mandruss. Savvyjack23 (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, in this particular case at least, linking to Haiti is useful, which I have done. It is possible to read the rules on overlinking too strictly, and, in any case, common sense would seem to be that someone might want to know the significance of Haitian descent. If there is disagreement, I would suggest that a Request for Comments would be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your opinion, but we're not talking useful, but whether it's appropriate per OVERLINK. The fact that you did it incorrectly is a completely seperate problem. An RfC is also not necessary since we have two editors who are experienced with OVERLINK who have stated it's not appropriate. It's a waste of time. If additional editors arrive here from the linking page and state it should be linked, then we should follow their advice. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Walter, whether you think the RfC was superflous or not, the fact of the matter is that policy not only allows Jack to utilize this tool to appeal for third-party input, it actually encourages him to do so in instances where he believes such broader community insight will help resolve the issue better than butting heads. Regardless, it's done and others will be commenting, and it's generally considered a good thing that most of those new voices will be previously un-involved in the matter. So grousing about the waste of time (rather than saving your comments here for making your policy case) is not going to win anybody over to your perspective.
As to the issue of WP:Overlink, it does not explicitly forbid this manner of link and having seen this discussion play out countless times, I can tell you with some confidence that you shouldn't expect too much support for that interpretation of the policy. Point in fact, Robert's argument that you admonished as irrelevant is in fact the very one that needs to be had here, because, as there is no community consensus on whether these links are appropriate in general, but rather a common community position that it is a matter of context, the usefullness of the internal link is exactly the deciding factor here. I'd be more interested in hearing your argument as to that point. And for that matter, getting a straightforward and succinct position from Jack as well. Snow let's rap 05:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He may, if he chooses, but another editor, this time an anon, linked it, so it's superfluous from his point of view, now at least, but I'd welcome it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While it does not explicitly forbid it, in spirit, it does not state it must happen. I have been editing within the guideline for five years. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Robert McClenon for the feedback. Savvyjack23 (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds as though this was a questionable request for a third opinion, because one of the editors didn't want a third opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had originally forwarded the request as there was a dispute. For what it is worth, it was endorsed by the opposing editor Walter Görlitz, shown here Talk:WP:OVERLINK. However, I do not believe that is a requirement to obtain a third opinion. Savvyjack23 (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • LINK Summoned by bot. I'm a little confused by the uproar - I don't see why the first mention of Haiti is not linked to the Haitian Americans article. Every article that specifies ethnicity has the first FIRST mention linked (eg Russian American, Irish American, French Canadian, etc). This is as standard as linking the city where people were born. Also I edited the page (fix typo, add citation requested etc) and I changed the unlinked Vichy, France to link to the actual city: Vichy, (comma) France. Anyone interested in knowing where that is, upon googling would receive "Vichy France" (ie the WWII French regime under the Nazis). I don't see anything wrong with the article the way it is now except the first mention should be linked to Haitian Americans.—МандичкаYO 😜 07:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that makes sense, and I'll revise my earlier comments. A Haitian is not a major geographical feature, unless he's a really, really big Haitian. So this link couldn't be excluded by that part of WP:OVERLINK. And really, a reader who has never seen the word Haitian may not know it refers to the country of Haiti, anyway. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If there's an article on dual nationality, it makes sense to link that, but not to the nation. And not every article links the first instance. And I removed the link to France because it's clearly an overlink. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is no broad community consensus on whether nations (or nationalities/demonyms) should be linked and WP:OVERLINK accordingly avoids the topic. The issue does come up repeatedly though, especially in BLPs. As there is no community consensus, editors are expected to exercise their own discretion on whether the linking is pertinent and useful to a particular context, and in the case of disagreement, to try to establish a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on the matter. Due to the poor formatting of (and approach to) this RfC, it's difficult to make out the arguments being made for and against that practical principle here and I'm afraid I haven't the time to look that aspect over in the detail necessary to give a judgement in that area, but as to the question of whether or not WP:OVERLINK or any other form of central community consensus outright prohibits this type of link as a class, no, there is no such standard. Snow let's rap 05:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Snow Rise: I regularly see editors removing links to large countries on the basis of WP:OVERLINK. As I indicated above, many if not most people consider countries to be geographical features; I for one first learned much about the countries of the world in 5th grade Geography class. If WP:OVERLINK "avoids the topic", it doesn't avoid it very well. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"I regularly see editors removing links to large countries on the basis of WP:OVERLINK."
So do I, but that is not nearly the same thing as community consensus in even a vague sense. I also see many people adding such links regularly, despite being quite familiar with WP:Overlink and many local talk page discussions on the topic resolve for inclusion. If you feel Overlink argues (or should argue) for a blanket ban on internal links to articles on nations (which seems utterly untenable to me as an universal approach for numerous reasons), then my recommendation would be that you take this discussion to the policy's talk page (or another central community discussion space) in order to see if there is support for that change as an explicit guideline. I don't think it's practical, but a discussion might at least lead to a clearer reading of the policy, even if it is just to say "it depends on..." In any event, as the community does not at present have a general and codified approach to this issue based on broad and explicit community consensus, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS must govern our approach and we have to decide if the link is useful in this case. Snow let's rap 08:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Mandruss, link only where the country-name is likely to be unfamilair to a signficant proportion of English-language readers. Sometimes this requires fine editorial judgement, but there are obvious contenders for not linking (unless specially justified by the context) and for linking. Moldavia would probably be linked, once. Egypt would probably not be linked.

    Most country-name links I see should be more specific: not South Africa, but Sport in South Africa, or even more specific if possible: readers deserve our knowledge and insight applied to linking judiciously; that includes the avoidance of over-generalised link-targets. The English Wikipeida, BTW, is far ahead of any other in the quality of linking practice. This is something we should be proud of and nurture. Tony (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not worth arguing about. WP:OVERLINK's prescriptions or not, we usually do link the first occurrence, in actual practice, of things like nations and cities, even the US, and even NYC. (And it not comparable to linking everyday words like "blue" or "shoes"; "blue" has no demographics, and "shoes" have no political history, really. People usually don't fight about city/country links if someone insists on delinking them. Still, while I'm a big fan of MOS providing consistent style rules, I don't like it wandering into usability territory very deep, because few of its regular editors have any usability experience (I do, so I think about the trade-off between various ergonomic and psychological factors more than average). I personally find it very frustrating when first occurrence is not linked, because I very often do want to go to the national article (or whatever) to check on something real quick, and it's irritating to have to manually do this with the URL bar. That said, I'm not an anti-MOS rebel. MOS:LINK does say what it says, and it is a community accepted guideline. The question to ask here (briefly and without further debate over trivia): Is linking in this case important enough to cite WP:IAR? If not, obey the guideline for now, and if you feel strongly about it, seek some adjustment to its level of prescriptiveness, at its talk page. There's some relevant discussions going on right now. PS: The value of country links in the lead (or otherwise upon first occurrence) generally varies greatly with the topical context. In a bio article like this is much less useful that would be, say, a link to Serbia in the first sentence of Serbo-Croatian. At that language article, I'm very like to immediately want to go look at demographics, right off the bat, but my urge to do something like that off of a bio article is very low.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brian_Sylvestre&oldid=1210605040"